"Whataboutism" - the new cowardly sprint from being held to a standard

[Mr. Friscus]

When you refer to a whataboutism as setting a standard you are saying exactly what I said you are. I'm sorry but you can't have it both ways. Either you believe in personal responsibility in wich case a standard flows from that, or you believe that a whataboutism is the way you do it.

Again, I'm not excusing behavior. I'm establishing a standard. If you refuse to condemn when some people do it, but then focus and loudly decry when others do it, all based on the letter after the name... How am I supposed to take you seriously?

Acknowledging when all do it is good faith, and a chance to unify around an agreed standard that we can hold all accountable too.

 

[forkup]

When you refer to a whataboutism as setting a standard you are saying exactly what I said you are. I'm sorry but you can't have it both ways. Either you believe in personal responsibility in wich case a standard flows from that, or you believe that a whataboutism is the way you do it.

Again, I'm not excusing behavior. I'm establishing a standard. If you refuse to condemn when some people do it, but then focus and loudly decry when others do it, all based on the letter after the name... How am I supposed to take you seriously?

It should be completely irrelevant if you take me seriously. The standard doesn't flow from that. That's the point I'm trying to make clear to you. Every time, and it has been quite a lot of times by now that you condition a standard on other people's behavior you are very much NOT advocating for personal responsibility.

You keep on saying you aren't excusing behavior while at the same time constructing a rationale for doing exactly that.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

It should be completely irrelevant if you take me seriously. The standard doesn't flow from that. That's the point I'm trying to make clear to you. Every time, and it has been quite a lot of times by now that you condition a standard on other people's behavior you are very much NOT advocating for personal responsibility.

You keep on saying you aren't excusing behavior while at the same time constructing a rationale for doing exactly that.

Nope. If I'm denouncing Both, I'm not excusing the behavior by definition. I'm simply keeping honest context, and not being merely politically expedient with drive-by attacks.

Meanwhile, your refusal to acknowledge things those whom you support did wrong is actually whiffing on personal responsibility. I will admit where those who I support are wrong. You seemingly won't, and view it as a "whataboutism" if I were to bring it up.

 

[forkup]

It should be completely irrelevant if you take me seriously. The standard doesn't flow from that. That's the point I'm trying to make clear to you. Every time, and it has been quite a lot of times by now that you condition a standard on other people's behavior you are very much NOT advocating for personal responsibility.

You keep on saying you aren't excusing behavior while at the same time constructing a rationale for doing exactly that.

Nope. If I'm denouncing Both, I'm not excusing the behavior by definition. I'm simply keeping honest context, and not being merely politically expedient with drive-by attacks.

So you are arguing let's set up a "standard" that's wrong on both sides? I'm not trolling by the way just going by how you defined the word. What would be the point of that?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

So you are arguing let's set up a "standard" that's wrong on both sides? I'm not trolling by the way just going by how you defined the word. What would be the point of that?

Both sides can act wrongly, absolutely. It's about what behavior you tolerate without noise and what you loudly denounce.

If we're debating, and you say "I don't tolerate lying", you're credible. If you only focus on Trump's lies and call any reference to Biden's lying as a "whataboutism", you're simply defending Biden, and just a political activist. We can't have an honest debate if you're going to do that.

 

[forkup]

So you are arguing let's set up a "standard" that's wrong on both sides? I'm not trolling by the way just going by how you defined the word. What would be the point of that?

Both sides can act wrongly, absolutely. It's about what behavior you tolerate without noise and what you loudly denounce.

If we're debating, and you say "I don't tolerate lying", you're credible. If you only focus on Trump's lies and call any reference to Biden's lying as a "whataboutism", you're simply defending Biden, and just a political activist.

I think I might see your logic. It's not a logic I agree with, because in effect it would be a blanket excuse for every politician to act however he wishes since there is absolutely no objective standard in your logic to determine similarities and differences between 2 events. It doesn't allow for context.

Let's say in your lying example. If we debate and I tell you one lie. And you debate and tell 1000 lies, by your logic, we are both liars and I lose the right to call out that you lied a 1000 times more than me.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

So you are arguing let's set up a "standard" that's wrong on both sides? I'm not trolling by the way just going by how you defined the word. What would be the point of that?

Both sides can act wrongly, absolutely. It's about what behavior you tolerate without noise and what you loudly denounce.

If we're debating, and you say "I don't tolerate lying", you're credible. If you only focus on Trump's lies and call any reference to Biden's lying as a "whataboutism", you're simply defending Biden, and just a political activist.

I think I might see your logic. It's not a logic I agree with, because in effect it would be a blanket excuse for every politician to act however he wishes since there is absolutely no objective standard in your logic to determine similarities and differences between 2 events. It doesn't allow for context.

Let's say in your lying example. If we debate and I tell you one lie. And you debate and tell 1000 lies, by your logic, we are both liars and I lose the right to call out that you lied a 1000 times more than me.

No, of course amount of lies matter. If proven lies are given by one than the other, then that needs to be addressed.

However, that's not the case. In the modern context, with the new definition of the word "lie" once Trump was elected, other factors get introduced, such as the clear bias of "fact checkers" who don't check facts but merely given their own judgments on the situation and call it "Fact". Despite the media pseudoclaims, Trump wasn't some increase in statistical, proven lies. And I'll denounce any lie he told, but I can also list so many massive, horrendous Obama, Clinton, and Biden lies as well. When held to the same "fact checking" standard, they're not far apart. That's why the left had to change the definition of the term to include perspective, context, and narrative, which I reject.

Wrong facts aren't what we think he meant, or that he didn't consider factors we think he should've. That's what the left uses to simply build up a high number of "lies" on Trump.. so they can sling the high number around to the laypeople for shock value. People can give their perspective and judgement all they want, but they can't call it a "fact", and they can't call things "lies" because they simply disagree with it.

 

[forkup]

Sorry, I just caught this.

Meanwhile, your refusal to acknowledge things those whom you support did wrong is actually whiffing on personal responsibility.

I'm not whiffing on anything. As I said I'd made a conscious effort to not let myself be sidetracked by anything but the premise of the OP. I don't think doing a "this person said this, that way so you shouldn't comment on another person saying or doing something else will get us any closer but fine. As I also said if you feel you made a particularly good point feel free to say so. So I will respond.

I will limit my responses to what you said about Biden and Harris since that seems the most relevant. If you are not satisfied just post a previous comment and I will indulge you too.

Kamala Harris supported a group that bailed out violent rioters.

Yes she did. This is their mission statement. Minnesota Freedom Fund (mnfreedomfund.org) For me personally supporting a group that is fighting a practice that literally comes down to class justice doesn't seem all that odious. And as far as I know, she had zero control who was bailed out.

George Floyd died on May 25th. Candidate Biden didn't say jack until May 29th, where he told CNN that people “have a right to be, in fact, angry and frustrated. And more violence, hurting more people, isn’t going to answer the question."

Seems pretty straightforward to me. Why should candidate Biden respond to it within a particular time? As I said it wasn't he who did it. It's not necessarily his place to even comment on it. What would Biden commenting on it on the 26th contribute. When he did he made it clear he didn't want violence but acknowledged that people have a right to be angry. My question is... didn't it make you angry? If not why not? If so does that mean your violent?

Forgive me if I don't view that as a scathing rebuke of the violence.

Maybe you don't. What matters is if it is at all ambiguous as to if he condones violence. Are you of the opinion the statement does?

 

[forkup]

So you are arguing let's set up a "standard" that's wrong on both sides? I'm not trolling by the way just going by how you defined the word. What would be the point of that?

Both sides can act wrongly, absolutely. It's about what behavior you tolerate without noise and what you loudly denounce.

If we're debating, and you say "I don't tolerate lying", you're credible. If you only focus on Trump's lies and call any reference to Biden's lying as a "whataboutism", you're simply defending Biden, and just a political activist.

I think I might see your logic. It's not a logic I agree with, because in effect it would be a blanket excuse for every politician to act however he wishes since there is absolutely no objective standard in your logic to determine similarities and differences between 2 events. It doesn't allow for context.

Let's say in your lying example. If we debate and I tell you one lie. And you debate and tell 1000 lies, by your logic, we are both liars and I lose the right to call out that you lied a 1000 times more than me.

No, of course amount of lies matter. If proven lies are given by one than the other, then that needs to be addressed.

However, that's not the case. In the modern context, with the new definition of the word "lie" once Trump was elected, other factors get introduced, such as the clear bias of "fact checkers" who don't check facts but merely given their own judgments on the situation and call it "Fact". Despite the media pseudoclaims, Trump wasn't some increase in statistical, proven lies. And I'll denounce any lie he told, but I can also list so many massive, horrendous Obama, Clinton, and Biden lies as well. When held to the same "fact checking" standard, they're not far apart. That's why the left had to change the definition of the term to include perspective, context, and narrative, which I reject.

Wrong facts aren't what we think he meant, or that he didn't consider factors we think he should've. That's what the left uses to simply build up a high number of "lies" on Trump.. so they can sling the high number around to the laypeople for shock value. People can give their perspective and judgement all they want, but they can't call it a "fact", and they can't call things "lies" because they simply disagree with it.

That's exactly my point although I wasn't really talking about Trump in my example, I was speaking in general. You just said that context matters, I agree. That's why using whataboutisms as means to set a standard is such a bad idea. It allows anybody, be it in good or bad faith, to draw comparisons between 2 events. It's not hard to do and allows anybody to justify anything by calling out any criticism as hypocrisy.

My post 62 illustrates the actual way to set a standard. As I said I believe and feel I have good reason to believe Durham's investigation is a partisan witch hunt. At the same time, I believe the investigation should proceed on the premise it is done in good faith. It is the same way courts work. It's by the way also how I try to debate.

The standards are simple and are completely detached from my opinion on the person presenting the position. In the case of Durham, it is. Is he capable of providing evidence of wrongdoing? Is he capable of getting a conviction based on the evidence? In this or any debate it is. Is the person providing a compelling argument to support his position? It's the reason I also talk to what you consider extremists. That is consistency, that is a standard, and it would completely be impossible if I make it conditional on whether or not I consider the person honest, or non-hypocritical.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Yes she did. This is their mission statement. Minnesota Freedom Fund (mnfreedomfund.org) For me personally supporting a group that is fighting a practice that literally comes down to class justice seems all that odious. And as far as I know, she had zero control who was bailed out.

Well, maybe she should have done a little due diligence. It turns out it was pretty reckless, and while I'm sure the Freedom Fund dresses up their mission as some sort of virtuous social justice crusade, that's a separate issue. The fact remains, they bail out violent rioters in the Minnesota BLM riots. I'm not sure why you're so soft on Harris here... she had zero control? Well, maybe she should know what she's talking about before giving gigantic endorsements. But, more specifically...

A. Do you think violent rioters should be bailed out in Minnesota?
B. If so, would you support Trump doing the same for Capitol rioters? And if not, why not?
C. If Kamala Harris didn't know, does she need to apologize for supporting these rioters, some of whom upon release returned to violence..?

Seems pretty straightforward to me. Why should candidate Biden respond to it within a particular time? As I said it wasn't he who did it. It's not necessarily his place to even comment on it. What would Biden commenting on it on the 26th contribute. When he did he made it clear he didn't want violence but acknowledged that people have a right to be angry. My question is... didn't it make you angry? If not why not? If so does that mean your violent?

Candidate Biden was one of the lead voices of his party.. why wouldn't he denounce it immediately? Is only the president required to denounce violence? Why wouldn't he, along with Pelosi, Schumer, etc. denounce it immediately? What was stopping them? For Christ's sake, entire blocks were burning and people were being murdered. It's an odd time to be MIA for a political figure. I think he was negligent and a political coward, afraid of saying anything remotely connected to BLM is wrong. No, they had a "right" to their anger, and that anger turned into violence. There were peaceful aspects of the Floyd protests, but all eventually involved violence. 10's of cities across the nation with the same trend. Peaceful protest during the day, then massive riots at night. Trump and the GOP denounced it. They could have used Democrat allies.. but they were nowhere to be found, and all the people in Minneapolis, Atlanta, Wisconsin, etc. paid the price. It's a shame.

Maybe you don't. What matters if it is at all ambiguous as to if he condones violence. Are you of the opinion the statement does?

Technically, yes, he denounced the general ideal of violence, but he certainly never denounced violence in any specific instance by any specific people or group. And he supporter their right to anger (whatever that is), which isn't exactly entirely denouncing it by principle. So he denounced the vague concept, but certainly not the real world examples. I hear people who are anti-Trump talk all the time about how Trump didn't take COVID seriously "enough". Trump is on record talking about how he believes in masks, but it's not good enough for Democrats and leftists. I guess what goes around comes around.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

It allows anybody, be it in good or bad faith, to draw comparisons between 2 events.

I don't get what's bad about that at all. It's how you compare morality.

We can agree to disagree, but if someone wanted to only be on the offense and refuse to acknowledge shortcomings of their own, they'd employ your strategy.

 

[forkup]

A. Do you think violent rioters should be bailed out in Minnesota?

I don't think bail should exist. I think whether or not a person is released pending trial should be depended on factors like flight risk, the seriousness of the offense, and other factors you can apply to everyone. Not financial means.

B. If so, would you support Trump doing the same for Capitol rioters? And if not, why not?

The same principle applies as described above. Hence me supporting standards. So yes.

C. If Kamala Harris didn't know, does she need to apologize for supporting these rioters, some of whom upon release returned to violence..?

Nope she doesn't. Personal responsibility and all. Minnesota freedom fund decided whom to release they bear the responsibility for actions as a result.

Candidate Biden was one of the lead voices of his party.. why wouldn't he denounce it immediately?

Maybe because he wasn't asked on January 26th. Maybe because he figured his opinion would have zero impact on what happened, maybe because he figured to not weigh in and make it political when emotions were raw or an entire array of other reasons. I don't know and neither do you. You can assume bad faith or like me good faith. Again a reason why it's so hard to determine standards on the basis of other people's actions.

Why wouldn't he, along with Pelosi, Schumer, etc. denounce it immediately? What was stopping them?

Answered that.

They could have used Democrat allies.. but they were nowhere to be found. It's a shame.

Biden denounced it. I found several more statements of them doing the same. I think if you would think of it objectively you should realize that no statement whatsoever would have changed anything about what happened.

Technically, yes,

What does that mean?

but he certainly never denounced violence in any specific instance by any specific people or group.

So what? You think calling out people specifically would have an impact if you aren't their leader?

nd he supporter their right to anger (whatever that is), which isn't exactly entirely denouncing it by principle.

Of course it is. Hence my questions. I can be angry and not violent, those are 2 different things

I hear people who are anti-Trump talk all the time about how Trump didn't take COVID seriously "enough". Trump is on record talking about how he believes in masks

He's also on record not wearing masks.... a lot, even in situations where the CDC advised it. He's also on record holding mass rallies without mass requirements. And he wasn't exactly plugging masks.

This is the reason I didn't go into any of the whataboutisms you were offering. You present but what about this I present my view on it, and this without reverting to a whataboutism myself. How are you supposed to be able to distill any standard if we can't even agree on what a specific example signifies?

 

[forkup]

It allows anybody, be it in good or bad faith, to draw comparisons between 2 events.

I don't get what's bad about that at all. It's how you compare morality.

We can agree to disagree, but if someone wanted to only be on the offense and refuse to acknowledge shortcomings of their own, they'd employ your strategy.

It's not hard to do and allows anybody to justify anything by calling out any criticism as hypocrisy.

That's what bad about that.

And no employing my strategy doesn't only mean you'll be on offense. It means the standard applies to both. I can boast that in my time on this board that I've admitted numerous times that I've been wrong on issues. I've even once completely changed my position because the standard I was applying made my position untenable. As far as I've seen over the years the first is extremely rare by anyone here and the second is unheard of, precisely because I apply standards scrupulously to everybody. I'm probably the only left-wing person in the world who is on record supporting Comey's decision to spring his Oktober surprise when he divulged the existence of the Weiner laptop, a decision that most likely cost Hillary the presidency.

I don't just apply standards when those standards help me that's why they are standards.

 

[forkup]

It allows anybody, be it in good or bad faith, to draw comparisons between 2 events.

I don't get what's bad about that at all. It's how you compare morality.

We can agree to disagree, but if someone wanted to only be on the offense and refuse to acknowledge shortcomings of their own, they'd employ your strategy.

It's not hard to do and allows anybody to justify anything by calling out any criticism as hypocrisy.

That's what bad about that.

And no employing my strategy doesn't only mean you'll be on offense. It means the standard applies to both. I can boast that in my time on this board that I've admitted numerous times that I've been wrong on issues. I've even once completely changed my position because the standard I was applying made my position untenable. As far as I've seen over the years the first is extremely rare by anyone here and the second is unheard of, precisely because I apply standards scrupulously to everybody. I'm probably the only left-wing person in the world who is on record supporting Comey's decision to spring his Oktober surprise when he divulged the existence of the Weiner laptop, a decision that most likely cost Hillary the presidency.

I don't just apply standards when those standards help me that's why they are standards.

Comey did what he had to do when he got new information. He notified congress the moment he got it. He took politics out of the equation, protecting the integrity of the bureau. He also knew politics would be put into it the moment it got released, but in my opinion acted in the best interest for his agency.

 

[BS Filter]

The new Democrat standard. Looting is now an acceptable form of protest.

House Dems' new hire slammed Capitol Police as 'white supremacists' after riot

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's new senior advisor for strategic outreach referred to police officers as "white supremacists" after the storming of the Capitol.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Mr. Friscus]

That's what bad about that.

And no employing my strategy doesn't only mean you'll be on offense. It means the standard applies to both. I can boast that in my time on this board that I've admitted numerous times that I've been wrong on issues. I've even once completely changed my position because the standard I was applying made my position untenable. As far as I've seen over the years the first is extremely rare by anyone here and the second is unheard of, precisely because I apply standards scrupulously to everybody. I'm probably the only left-wing person in the world who is on record supporting Comey's decision to spring his Oktober surprise when he divulged the existence of the Weiner laptop, a decision that most likely cost Hillary the presidency.

I don't just apply standards when those standards help me that's why they are standards.

Agreed, if I didn't know better you're coming over the my side. I've held many standards that went "against" my side of the aisle, because if an action is wrong, it's wrong no matter who does it.

 

[forkup]

That's what bad about that.

And no employing my strategy doesn't only mean you'll be on offense. It means the standard applies to both. I can boast that in my time on this board that I've admitted numerous times that I've been wrong on issues. I've even once completely changed my position because the standard I was applying made my position untenable. As far as I've seen over the years the first is extremely rare by anyone here and the second is unheard of, precisely because I apply standards scrupulously to everybody. I'm probably the only left-wing person in the world who is on record supporting Comey's decision to spring his Oktober surprise when he divulged the existence of the Weiner laptop, a decision that most likely cost Hillary the presidency.

I don't just apply standards when those standards help me that's why they are standards.

Agreed, if I didn't know better you're coming over the my side. I've held many standards that went "against" my side of the aisle, because if an action is wrong, it's wrong no matter who does it.

That's always been my position, I just don't feel what other people do have anything to do with my standards. Or that making standards for politicians on the basis of what either side does is a good idea or even doable.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Nope she doesn't. Personal responsibility and all. Minnesota freedom fund decided whom to release they bear the responsibility for actions as a result.

That is a very shallow level of accountability you hold for Harris. So she can fling groups around all she wants, and if they do anything wrong she's at no harm, no foul? What me worry? No, I wouldn't hold that standard for Trump or Harris. If you're going to publicly support a group, you own what they do as their mission. And if you were misled, you have to speak out and apologize. If she had been a Republican, she'd have been front page news and damned. Since she's a Democrat and leftist, the media ignores it, and much of the country is blockaded from every knowing, which is clearly their intent.

Biden denounced it. I found several more statements of them doing the same. I think if you would think of it objectively you should realize that no statement whatsoever would have changed anything about what happened.

So Biden and Democrats are harmless to change anything? Um... I think that's passing the buck of responsibility.

Biden denounced the vague concept of violence, he didn't denounce violence that began at BLM protests in specific cities. But notice, he DID point out quite clearly the rioters at the Capitol building, and who they supported. Odd that he'd be so protectively vague when defending those "victim class" groups on his side while so offensively detailed yet all-encompassing when attacking his opponent..eh? It's almost as if he treats things differently based on who does it.. which is my point from the start, his lack of standards.

This is the reason I didn't go into any of the whataboutisms you were offering. You present but what about this I present my view on it, and this without reverting to a whataboutism myself. How are you supposed to be able to distill any standard if we can't even agree on what a specific example signifies?

I'm all about establishing, or at least having the conversation of establishing, parameters before getting into a topic.

 

[Batcat]

You see the left calling any attempt to establish a standard as a "whataboutism".

Well, yes. "What about.." matters.

If your candidate and you denounce X openly, and you accuse the candidate you oppose of X while it's proven your own candidate has also done X...

You'd say me bringing up you and your candidate's hypocrisy is a "whataboutism"... which is just a defense mechanism to deflect and avoid your lack fo standards.

That's all is. If you're running around saying "Whataboutism".. you're an intellectual and philosophical coward..

Toughen up and set consistent, uniform standards for all people.

Guess what. I've been on here for 4 years. Every single time something happened that Trump did that was unprecedented behavior, people on here in defense of him simply laughed it off. Most of the time saying things like it's not illegal, or it's just Trump being Trump, or calling me just names. So forgive me when I'm a bit skeptical when precedent is the excuse now for making what are in general false equivalencies.

You will not find a candidate X,Y or Z on the Democratic side that has conducted himself the way Trump has. Not legally or morally.

Perhaps we will not find a candidate on the Democrat side who conducts themselves like Trump but you will find plenty that are totally corrupt. Prime examples are Hillary Clinton and Joe and Hunter Biden with their ”play to pay” schemes.

But to be fair there are also a lot of corrupt republicans in office who have sold their souls to the highest bidder.

That’s why D.C. is called the Swamp.

Trump may be irritating and obnoxious but I seriously believe he cared about our nation while most establishment politicians are globalists.

I’ll take a nationalist like Trump over a globalist any day. Trump wanted to keep our nation number one in the world but was willing to help other nations with fair trade policies and made considerable headway in the Middle East. He also kept us out of useless wars designed so the military industrial complex would profit and we would continue to see commercials asking us to contribute to vets who lost their arms or legs fighting for “democracy.” (Perhaps the military industrial complex that made big bucks because we sent our young men to fight tin foreign shitholes should pay for custom homes for our injured vets.)

 

[RandomPoster]

You see the left calling any attempt to establish a standard as a "whataboutism".

Well, yes. "What about.." matters.

If your candidate and you denounce X openly, and you accuse the candidate you oppose of X while it's proven your own candidate has also done X...

You'd say me bringing up you and your candidate's hypocrisy is a "whataboutism"... which is just a defense mechanism to deflect and avoid your lack fo standards.

That's all is. If you're running around saying "Whataboutism".. you're an intellectual and philosophical coward..

Toughen up and set consistent, uniform standards for all people.

It's used as an excuse to argue in only one direction.